If you’ve ever seen the animated tv series “Arcane”, get in here! Randomly scrolling X (formerly Twitter), I came across a post in a language I now understand to be Portuguese. What caught my attention however, was the video attached[1] – an artificial intelligence (“AI”) regenerated trailer of the Arcane show. This post is on one of the many live issues being debated on in the domain of AI IP.
Digging deeper, I found that the controversy was sparked by none other than the streaming giant, Netflix. In November of 2024, Netflix found itself in the eye of a storm of public outrage that highlighted ongoing tensions between technology and artistry.
The streaming platform faced backlash for using AI to extend a promotional poster for the highly anticipated second season of “Arcane,” the Emmy-winning animated series set in the universe of Riot Games’ “League of Legends.”
The AI Misstep
It all started from a fan’s astute observation on social media about the inconsistencies in the extended artwork; distorted anatomy and unnatural details, the all too well-known marks of AI-generated imagery. Social media platforms quickly buzzed with criticism, with fans and industry professionals alike scrutinizing the image. The backlash grew when Arcane’s brand lead, Alex Shahmiri responded publicly to the uproar, acknowledging the error and taking swift action to address the community’s concerns.
alex @RiotAstryx on X:
“appreciate you bringing this to our attention. we have a strict stance of no ai for anything relating to arcane cause it’s disrespectful to the incredible artists who worked on the show. this image was a mistake and has since been removed. ty again for calling it out”
The promotional poster in question was meant to celebrate the energetic artistry of “Arcane,” a series known for its sophisticated animation and compelling storytelling. Instead, the use of AI to extend the artwork undermined these values, creating rage from both fans and the creative community. Many felt that using AI in this context was a disservice to the artists who painstakingly crafted the show’s unique aesthetic.
Riot Games, the developer behind “League of Legends” and a key collaborator on “Arcane,” echoed Shahmiri’s sentiments. The company deemed the use of AI in this context as “disrespectful” to the artists who contributed to the show’s success. This criticism seems to reflect a broader concern within the creative industry; AI-generated art’s potential to devalue human artistry and threaten employment opportunities for skilled creators.
Riot’s stance on the issue continues to highlight the importance of preserving artistic integrity in a world increasingly influenced by technology. The company’s public disapproval added weight to the growing debate over the ethical implications of AI in creative fields. The controversy surrounding “Arcane’s” poster isn’t an isolated incident. It’s a symptom of a larger cultural and technological shift. AI tools have rapidly advanced in recent years, offering unprecedented efficiency and creative possibilities. From generating concept art to assisting in animation, AI has become a valuable asset in many industries. However, its use often sparks ethical questions about originality, authorship, and the displacement of human talent.
In the case of “Arcane,” fans and creators alike viewed the use of AI as an insult to the spirit of the series. “Arcane” is celebrated not just for its storytelling but for its visual artistry, which is the result of countless hours of meticulous work by talented artists. By using AI to extend the promotional poster, Netflix carelessly conveyed a lack of appreciation for these efforts.
The Bigger Picture: AI, Art, and Canadian IP Law
This issue is an evident symptom of a larger cultural and technological shift, one that resonates deeply within the framework of Canadian intellectual property (IP) law. As AI tools advance, questions of ownership, originality, and artistic rights become increasingly urgent.
Under Canadian IP law, works must be “original”[2] to be eligible for copyright protection. However, AI-generated content complicates this definition. If a machine produces or significantly alters a work, who holds the copyright: the AI’s developer, the user, or no one at all? The “Arcane” poster exemplifies these issues, as it raises concerns about the reproduction of copyrighted materials and the moral rights of artists.
Moral rights, which are openly recognized in Canadian copyright law, protect an artist’s right to the integrity of their work and to be credited as its author[3]. By extending the “Arcane” poster with AI without consulting the original artists, Netflix risked infringing on these moral rights. The resulting backlash reflects a broader sentiment within creative communities and a demand for respect and recognition in an era where technology increasingly violates human fields.
A Cautionary Tale
The incident serves as a cautionary tale for companies navigating the integration of AI into creative processes. While AI offers undeniable benefits, its application must be carefully considered, especially in projects that rely heavily on artistic integrity. Transparency is key. Companies must clearly communicate when and how AI is used to ensure that audiences and collaborators feel respected.
Netflix swiftly responded to the backlash by removing the AI-extended poster and reaffirming its commitment to honoring the craftsmanship behind “Arcane”. Although this was a step in the right direction, the damage had already been done, leaving many to question how such a misstep occurred in the first place.
Ethical Implications and AI in Content Creation
The debate over AI-generated content, as seen in the video by Ian Verxel[4], emphasizes the ethical concerns surrounding AI. It shows how easily AI-generated art can distort or erase the intent and identity of human creators. Canadian IP law also prohibits reproducing copyrighted material without authorization, yet AI models often rely on datasets that include copyrighted works. This is a legal gray area: can AI-generated derivatives be considered infringements if they draw heavily from copyrighted material? The “Arcane” poster incident raises these questions, especially as platforms like Netflix increasingly explore AI for creative purposes.
Industry Implications
The “Arcane” poster controversy is part of a broader conversation about the role of AI in the creative industry. As AI tools become more sophisticated, their use in fields like illustration, animation, and graphic design will likely increase. This will undoubtedly turn the masses towards the court for direction. Some questions arise in earnest:
- How can companies ensure that AI complements rather than replaces human creativity?
- Can AI pass the McLachlin test for originality[5]?
- Would the ingestion and reproduction of the “Arcane” trailer to realistic AI characters qualify as fair dealing?
- What legal and ethical guidelines should govern the use of AI in artistic projects?
- How can artists be protected and valued in an era of rapid technological change?
Moving Forward
For Netflix, the backlash serves as a reminder of the high standards expected by fans of “Arcane” and other beloved series. For the industry at large, it’s an opportunity to reflect on the ethical implications of AI and to establish best practices for its use in creative projects.
In Canada, the hope is that the “Arcane” controversy sparks discussions around revising IP laws to address AI’s impact on creative industries. Policymakers, artists, and tech developers must collaborate to ensure that Canadian copyright law continues to protect creators while fostering innovation. Ultimately, the debate over AI-generated art is about more than just technology; it’s about what we value as a society. By supporting the contributions of human artists, the “Arcane” community has sent a powerful message: creativity is, and should remain, a deeply human endeavor.
[1] https://x.com/ianverxel/status/1863626810736431174?s=46
[2] CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 SCC 13
[3] Moral rights are defined under Section 2 of the Copyright Act, RSC 1985, c. C-42 as the rights provided for under sections 14.1(1) and 17.1(1)
[4] Supra at 1
[5] Supra at 2
Copyright & Social Media
Communications Law